Memorandum Points and Authorities

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.August 24, 2017

LAW OFFICES OF CHOLAKIAN & ASSOCIATES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 400 OYSTER POINT BLVD., SUITE 415 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94080 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 7CV31 5032 Santa Clara - Civil KEVIN K. CHOLAKIAN (S.B. #103423) kcholakian@cholakian.net MELVIN F. MARCIA (S.B. #309568) mmarcia@cholakian.net CHOLAKIAN & ASSOCIATES A Professional Corporation 400 Oyster Point B1Vd., Ste. 415 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Telephone: (650) 871-9544 Facsimile: (650) 871-9552 Attorneys for Defendant Louis Bonino Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 6/11/2021 10:38 AM Reviewed By: S. Vera Case #1 7CV31 5032 Envelope: 6631445 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA JOSE ANGEL PALOMERA-BRAVO, Plaintiffs, VS. JEREMY R. BONINO, LOUIS BONINO, BRENT BONINO, and DOES 1-20, Inclusive, Defendants. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv Case N0.: 17CV3 15032 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF LOUIS BONINO’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS Hearing Date: June 24, 2021 Time: 9:00 am. Department: 7 Action Filed: August 24, 2017 Trial Date: December 13, 2021 S. Vera _ 1 _ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF LOUIS BONINO’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS LAW OFFICES OF CHOLAKIAN & ASSOCIATES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 400 OYSTER POINT BLVD., SUITE 415 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94080 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I. INTRODUCTION On August 3 1 , 2015, at about 6:00 a.m., the 1997 Chevy Tahoe owned by Defendant Brent Bonino, and driven by Defendant Jeremy Bonino, was travelling southbound 0n Monterey Rd., approaching the intersection with Las Animas Rd., in Gilroy, CA when JEREMY failed t0 stop for a red-light signal. As a result 0fJeremy Bonino’s failure t0 stop at the red light, the 1997 Chevy Tahoe collided with Plaintiff’s GMC Sierra truck. Jeremy Bonino admitted t0 liability t0 the accident by way 0f Requests for Admissions. Jeremy Bonino and Brent Bonino testified that Defendant Louis Bonino, Jeremy’s grandfather, is one 0f the owners of LJB Farm in San Martin, CA. (Declaration of Melvin F. Marcia (hereinafter “Marcia Decl.” 1] 5.) Plaintiff refused t0 dismiss Louis Bonino from the case, despite several meet and confer efforts made by Defense counsel. Plaintiff counsel insisted that Louis Bonino was liable and claimed t0 possess facts that would show either Vicarious liability, 0r some other theory ofliability. (“Marcia Decl.” 1] 6.) Defense counsel offered a waiver 0f costs in exchange for a dismissal, over a year before the motion for summary judgment was heard, but Plaintiff refused the offer and instead chose t0 continue t0 pursue a claim against Mr. Louis Bonino. (“Marcia Decl.” 1] 7.) It became clear that Louis Bonino was named as a defendant in order t0 pressure the other defendants and their respective insurer, t0 settle. Plaintiff believed that Louis Bonino possessed substantial assets which he would want t0 protect, as opposed t0 22-year-old Jeremy, 0r his uncle Brent, whose owner liability is capped by California Vehicle Code § 1715 1. Plaintiff maintained his position that Louis Bonino was liable for the accident by Virtue 0f his ownership stake in LJB, which is where the subject vehicle had been parked, and used. Plaintiff argued that Louis Bonino was vicariously liable for the actions 0f Jeremy Bonino because the 1997 Chevy Tahoe had at one point been used t0 move fruit from the fields t0 the store front. (“Marcia Decl.” 1] 8.) On December 27, 2019, Defense counsel wrote t0 Plaintiff counsel asking Plaintiff to dismiss Mr. Louis Bonino as defendant, that correspondence was ignored. (“Marcia Decl.” 1] 9.) On January 23, 2020, Defense counsel wrote t0 Plaintiff counsel again, asking Plaintiff to dismiss Mr. Louis Bonino as defendant, that correspondence was ignored. (“Marcia Decl.” 1] 10.) Plaintiff did not seek t0 depose Louis Bonino until years after filing his complaint, _ 2 _ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF LOUIS BONINO’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS LAW OFFICES OF CHOLAKIAN & ASSOCIATES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 400 OYSTER POINT BLVD., SUITE 415 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94080 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and after being served with a Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (“Marcia Decl.” 1] 11.) On October 23, 2020, Plaintiff counsel wrote t0 defense counsel and indicated that based 0n the evidence, Plaintiff remained convinced that Louis Bonino was liable for the subj ect accident, and stated: “Your MSJ is 0n the ground that the owner 0f the farm, Louis Bonino, has n0 legal connection t0 the suit and should be dismissed. As discussed, the vehicle involved in the accident was testified t0 have been left 0n farm grounds and used for farm purposes. Brent Bonino and Jeremy Bonino both testified that the vehicle was maintained by the owners 0f the farm in the same manner the other farm vehicles were maintained. As also communicated t0 you back in January 0f this year, we will consider dismissing Louis Bonino once I have taken his deposition and ruled out his involvement in the use and maintenance 0f the vehicle. I will assure you that the evidence t0 date does present a “triable issue 0f fact” relative t0 Louis’ “legal relation” t0 the facts and Plaintiffs legal theories. Please Provide available dates for Mr. Bonino’s deposition.” (“Marcia Decl.” 1] 12.) Defense counsel responded t0 the above, by stating: “[as] a reminder, my client would be entitled t0 seek costs associated with litigation, including the proposed deposition, if the MSJ is granted, which we believe is the most likely result based 0n the facts and pleadings.” (Id) On October 29, 2020, Plaintiff asked for dates 0n which Mr. Louis Bonino could be deposed and was informed that he was not in good health, and would be undergoing a heart procedure, preventing from appearing for a deposition, until he recovered. (“Marcia Decl.” 1] 13 .) On November 4, 2020, Plaintiff wrote t0 Defense counsel and indicated that Plaintiff wanted t0 take Louis Bonino’s “deposition t0 explore the use and maintenance 0f a vehicle used t0 transport products t0 and from a Farm he owns. There is sufficient nexus t0 keep him in.” (“Marcia Decl.” 1] 14.) On January 24, 2020, Plaintiff served an objection t0 the deposition 0f Dr. Bakshian noticed for January 28, 2020. Defendants wrote a letter 0n the same date t0 meet and confer as t0 the objections and claims raised by Plaintiff’s objection. (“Marcia Decl.” 1] 15.) The deposition 0f Dr. Bakshian was first noticed 0n November 18, 2019, it was t0 take place 0n December 20, 2019. That deposition date was subsequently amended by way 0f mutual agreement, and an amended notice was served 0n December 26, 2019, for a deposition t0 occur 0n February 5, 2020, _ 3 _ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF LOUIS BONINO’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS LAW OFFICES OF CHOLAKIAN & ASSOCIATES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 400 OYSTER POINT BLVD., SUITE 415 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94080 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 t0 coincide with the date 0f Dr. Payman’s deposition. Unfortunately, February 5, 2020 did not work for Dr. Bakshian, and Defense counsel’s office corresponded with Plaintiff counsel, t0 confirm that all sides would be available 0n January 28, 2020. Ms. Azimi confirmed her availability Via email, and our office served an amended notice then. Plaintiff had ample time t0 raise an issue as t0 the propriety 0f Defendants deposing Dr. Bakshian, but waited until the proverbial 11th hour t0 object, just prior t0 the date 0f the deposition. (“Marcia Decl.” 1] 16.) Plaintiff claimed that the previously produced records, containing Dr. Bakshian’s, report, inadvertently included privileged work-product materials, contacted Dr. Bakshian, and instructed him not t0 appear at the scheduled deposition. At n0 time during the over two-month period since the alleged inadvertent disclosure, and subsequent notices t0 depose Dr. Bakshian, did Plaintiff indicate an attempt t0 seek t0 quash the subpoena for Dr. Bakshian’s deposition, seek a protective order, 0r t0 meet and confer in any meaningful t0 resolve this issue. The fact is that Dr. Bakshian’s report was included in Plaintiff’s medical records, provided by counsel in support 0f Plaintiff’s claims and in furtherance 0f this litigation. Defense counsel could not have interpreted this record t0 be considered “work-product” based 0n the contents 0f the report, and in the manner in which it was made available. (See McKesson HBOC, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1239.) (“Marcia Decl.” 1] 17.) Given Plaintiff’s objection, Defendants did not proceed with the deposition, but in the process incurred a cancellation fee from the court reporting service, in the amount 0f $295, and should be included as a cost incurred in the defense 0f Louis Bonino. (“Marcia Decl.” 1] 18.) Jeremy Bonino admitted t0 liability t0 the accident by way 0f Requests for Admissions. Brent Bonino admitted under oath that he was the owner 0f the subject vehicle and let his nephew Jeremy Bonino borrow the vehicle. (“Marcia Decl.”W 19,20.) On February 18, 2021, the Court issued an order granting Defendant Louis Bonino’s motion for summary judgment. Defendant timely filed a memorandum 0f costs 0n Mach 4, 2021, and served Plaintiff 0n the same date. Plaintiff served a motion t0 tax costs and provided a memorandum 0f points and authorities and a declaration by Bita Azimi, Esq., in support 0f the _ 4 _ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF LOUIS BONINO’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS LAW OFFICES OF CHOLAKIAN & ASSOCIATES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 400 OYSTER POINT BLVD., SUITE 415 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94080 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 motion. A hearing date was provided by the Court at a later time. Defendant Louis Bonino files this motion in opposition t0 Plaintiff’s motion t0 tax costs. (“Marcia Decl.” 1] 21.) II. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. Louis Bonino is a Prevailing Party and Entitled t0 Recover His Costs. The general rule is that a prevailing party is entitled t0 recover costs as a matter 0f law. Code CiV. Proc. § 1032; see also Naser v. Lakeridge Athletic Club (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 571, 575.) The prevailing party is entitled t0 all costs and, unless another statute provides otherwise, the trial court lacks discretion t0 deny costs t0 the prevailing party. (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111.). “The right t0 recover any 0f the costs 0f a civil action ‘is determined entirely by statute.’” (Anthony v. City ofLos Angeles (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 101 1, 1014.) “‘[I]n the absence 0f an authorizing statute, n0 costs can be recovered by either party.”’ (Davis v. KGO- T. V., Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 436, 439, disapproved and superseded by statute 0n other grounds as stated in Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire Dist. (2015) 61 Cal.4th 97, 105-107 & fn. 1 347 P.3d 976.) “Section 1032 governs the award 0f costs 0f trial court litigation.” (Acosta v. SI Corp. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1370, 1375.) Under section 1032, subdivision (b), a “prevailing party” is entitled t0 recover costs “as a matter 0f right” unless otherwise provided by statute. Section 1032, subdivision (a)(4), defines who is a prevailing party entitled t0 costs. The first sentence 0f that subdivision describes four categories 0f litigants who automatically qualify as prevailing parties. It reads: “Prevailing party” includes [1] the party with a net monetary recovery, [2] a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered, [3] a defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant obtains any relief, and [4] a defendant as against those plaintiffs who d0 not recover any relief against that defendant.” (Wakefield v. Bohlin (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 963, 975 (Wakefield), disapproved 0n other grounds in Goodman v. Lozano (2010) 47 Ca1.4th 1327, 1338.) (Charton v. Harkey (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 730, 737-738.) In allocating costs between jointly represented parties, however, the trial court may not make an across-the-board reduction based 0n the number ofjointly represented parties because such an allocation fails t0 consider the necessity 0r reasonableness 0f the costs as required by section 1033.5, subdivision (c). (Nelson, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at p. 130.) Instead, when _ 5 _ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF LOUIS BONINO’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS LAW OFFICES OF CHOLAKIAN & ASSOCIATES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 400 OYSTER POINT BLVD., SUITE 415 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94080 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 allocating costs between jointly represented parties, the court must examine the reason each cost was incurred, whether the cost was reasonably necessary t0 the conduct 0f the litigation 0n behalf 0f the prevailing party, and the reasonableness 0f the cost. (Ibid. [court must “distinguish between costs incurred as a result 0f the actions 0r tactics 0f [the prevailing jointly represented party] as opposed t0 [the nonprevailing jointly represented party]”].) (Id. at 744-745) A prevailing party who claims costs must serve and file a memorandum 0f costs within 15 days after the date 0f mailing 0f the notice 0f entry ofjudgment 0r dismissal by the clerk under Code 0f Civil Procedure (“C.C.P.”) section 664.5 0r the date 0f service 0f written notice 0f entry 0f judgment 0r dismissal, 0r within 180 days after entry 0f judgment, whichever is first. The memorandum 0f costs must be verified by a statement 0f the party, attorney, 0r agent that t0 the best ofhis 0r her knowledge the items 0f cost are correct and were necessarily incurred in the case. On February 18, 2021, the Court issued an order granting Defendant Louis Bonino’s motion for summary judgment. Defendant timely filed a memorandum 0f costs 0n Mach 4, 2021, and served Plaintiff 0n the same date. In this case, Louis Bonino was the prevailing party and is entitled t0 costs as a matter 0f law. N0 statutory exceptions exist that would act t0 deny costs in this matter t0 Louis Bonino. Further, Louis Bonino complied with the procedural requirements in claiming costs pursuant t0 Cal. Rules 0f Court, Rule 3.1700, and the motion t0 tax costs should be denied. Defendant Louis Bonino files this motion in opposition t0 Plaintiff’s motion t0 tax costs. B. The Costs Sought Are Reasonable and Were Necessary t0 Defendant Louis Bonino Code CiV. Proc. § 1033.5(a) details what items are allowable as costs under Code CiV. Proc. § 1032. (See Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal. App. 4th 111.) A11 0f the costs sought in Louis Bonino’s memorandum 0f cost, are supported by statute, and Plaintiffs motion t0 tax does not identify any costs which are indeed not allowed under the statute. “[T]he verified memorandum 0f costs is prima facie evidence 0f their propriety, and the burden is 0n the party seeking t0 tax costs t0 show they were not reasonable 0r necessary.” 612 South LLC v. Laconic Ltd. Partnership (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 1270.). In other words, “[i]f the items appearing in a cost bill appear t0 be proper charges, the burden is 0n the party seeking t0 tax _ 6 _ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF LOUIS BONINO’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS LAW OFFICES OF CHOLAKIAN & ASSOCIATES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 400 OYSTER POINT BLVD., SUITE 415 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94080 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 costs t0 show that they were not reasonable 0r necessary.” (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Ca1.App.4th 761, 774.) The determination 0f whether a cost item was reasonably necessary t0 the litigation pursuant t0 Code CiV. Proc. § 1033.5 is a question 0f fact for the trial court based upon the individual case. (E.g., Naser, supra, 227 Cal. App. at p.173). “However, because the right t0 costs is governed strictly by statute a court has n0 discretion t0 award costs not statutorily authorized.” (Id.) Plaintiff indicates Via Ms. Azimi’s signed declaration that Plaintiff sustained injuries as a result 0f the accident and that the depositions 0f Dr. Kovacs, D.C., Dr. Grabovsky M.D., Dr. Helman, M.D., Dr. Vaidya, M.D., Dr. Busfield, M.D., Dr. Payman, M.D., Kim, Dr. Davis, Amanda Gill, German Alexander Cornejo, and Dr. Voci, “were strictly about damages and entirely unrelated t0 the issue 0f Defendant Louis Bonino’s liability forming the basis for the Motion for Summary Judgement. Furthermore, these depositions would have been necessary in furtherance 0f the defense 0f the remaining two defendants in the lawsuit, Jeremy Bonino and Brent Bonino.” (“Azimi Decl.” w 4-16.) Without providing the legal basis for the argument, Plaintiff suggests that Louis Bonino is only entitled t0 costs which relate t0 Louis Bonino’s liability arguments which would form the basis for his motion for summary judgment. There simply is no basis in law for this distinction. Plaintiff has failed t0 meet his burden 0f demonstrating that the costs incurred “were not reasonable 0r necessary.” (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at p.774.) Having failed t0 meet his burden, Plaintiff’s motion t0 strike 0r tax these costs should fail. As a defendant in a case with a policy limit demand and C.C.P. §998 demand for millions of dollars, and with Louis Bonino being a person with considerable assets, being able t0 assess Plaintiff’s alleged injuries and potential damages was 0f extreme importance for all defendant’s but specially for the defendant which plaintiffhad specifically focused 0n because 0f his potential assets, based 0n his ownership interests of LJB farm. _ 7 _ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF LOUIS BONINO’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS LAW OFFICES OF CHOLAKIAN & ASSOCIATES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 400 OYSTER POINT BLVD., SUITE 415 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94080 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 As t0 the costs incurred as a result 0f the cancellation 0f Dr. Bakshian’s deposition, Plaintiff” s last-minute obj ection based 0n a claim 0f inadvertent disclosure ofpriVileged materials, those costs were incurred in the defense 0f Louis Bonino’s interests (“Marcia Decl.”W 15-1 8). Ms. Azimi’s declaration also states that costs associated with the depositions 0f Plaintiff, defendants Jeremy Bonino, should be stricken because “[these] deposition[s] w[ere] strictly about damages and entirely unrelated t0 the issue 0f Defendant Louis Bonino’s liability forming the basis for the Motion for Summary Judgement. (“Azimi Decl.” W 17-18.) Again, Plaintiff’s motion does not provide this Court with any legal basis for this position. Plaintiff mistakenly assumes that the only costs Louis Bonino is statutorily authorized t0 obtain as a prevailing party, are those directly related t0 the actual motion for summary judgment; there is n0 legal authority for this position. With regard t0 the deposition 0f Mr. Louis Bonino himself, Plaintiff argues: Defendant testified t0 his relationship with defendants Jeremy and Brent, his knowledge 0f Jeremy Bonino’s fitness and driving background, the garaging 0f the vehicle involved in the accident, the insurance coverage for the vehicle, the identity 0f the insured 0n the policy covering the vehicle and the use and maintenance 0f the vehicle for business purposes. Plaintiff would have pursued this deposition irrespective 0f Louis Bonino’s presence in the action and in furtherance 0f the claims against the remaining two defendants in the lawsuit, Jeremy Bonino and Brent Bonino. Albeit, 0f all costs delineated in the Memorandum 0f costs, this deposition is the only one with any relevance t0 Defendant Louis Bonino’s liability forming the basis for the Motion for Summary Judgement. (“Azimi Decl.” 1H9.) Here, counsel’s statement in her declaration is simply not supported by the body 0f evidence. For starters, as noted in the underlying motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants Jeremy and Brent Bonino had already admitted liability Via Request for Admission 0r under sworn testimony. (“Marcia Decl.”W 19,20.) Lastly, Plaintiff’s catch-all attempt t0 strike prevailing party costs states that “with the exception 0f a fraction 0f Louis Bonino’s Deposition fees, remaining Defendants Jeremy Bonino and Brent Bonino would have had t0 incur the Deposition costs 0f $3 1 ,707.85 irrespective 0fLouis Bonino’s presence in the action and in furtherance 0fthe claims against them personally.” Plaintiff _ 8 _ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF LOUIS BONINO’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS LAW OFFICES OF CHOLAKIAN & ASSOCIATES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 400 OYSTER POINT BLVD., SUITE 415 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94080 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 again fails t0 provide the legal basis for this Court t0 find that irrespective 0f Defendant Louis Bonino’s status as a prevailing party, he should only be awarded costs which were directly related t0 the actual motion for summary judgment, indeed Plaintiffeven asks this Court t0 strike the costs for defending Louis Bonino’s deposition. As demonstrated above, the costs were all appropriate and were necessary t0 the litigation and were reasonable in amount. The motion t0 strike and/or tax costs should be denied. C. Apportionment Among Several Defendants Unless otherwise provided by statute, a “prevailing party” is entitled t0 recover costs in any action 0r proceeding “as a matter 0f right.” (Goodman v. Lozano (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1327, 1333.) When there are multiple defendants and one 0f the defendants is determined t0 be a prevailing party, the Courts had in the past utilized the “unity 0f interest principle” which vested the trial court with discretion t0 deny 0r apportion costs otherwise recoverable by a prevailing party defendant. (Zintel Holdings, LLC v. McLean (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 431, 441.) However, that principle is rooted in the language 0f former Code 0f Civil Procedure section 1032, subdivision (b), as it read before the statutes governing recovery 0f costs were substantially revisedM” (Id. emphasis added.) “The statute defines the prevailing party t0 include four categories 0f parties: the party with a net monetary recovery, the defendant in whose favor a dismissal was entered, the defendant where neither plaintiffnor defendant recovers any relief, and the defendant against whom plaintiff has not recovered any relief.” (Building Maintenance Service C0. v. AIL Systems, Inc. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1014, 1025.) Instead, when allocating costs between jointly represented parties, the court must examine the reason each cost was incurred, whether the cost was reasonably necessary t0 the conduct 0f the litigation 0n behalf 0f the prevailing party, and the reasonableness 0f the cost. (Ibid. [court must “distinguish between costs incurred as a result 0f the actions 0r tactics 0f [the prevailing jointly represented party] as opposed t0 [the nonprevailing jointly represented party]”].) (Id. at 744-745) Plaintiff’s motion is silent 0n all 0f these issues and the Court does not have the obligation of doing Plaintiff’s work for him. The fact is that the burden t0 demonstrate the lack 0f _ 9 _ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF LOUIS BONINO’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS LAW OFFICES OF CHOLAKIAN & ASSOCIATES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 400 OYSTER POINT BLVD., SUITE 415 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94080 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 reasonableness 0r necessity for the various costs Plaintiff seeks t0 strike 0r tax, remains with Plaintiff, and he has failed t0 meet that burden here. III. CONCLUSION Louis Bonino was a prevailing party and is entitled t0 recover his costs as a matter ofright. The costs sought were reasonable and necessary for his defense, which ultimately resulted in a successful motion for summary judgment. For all 0f the above reasons, and pursuant t0 the authorities cited herein, the Court is respectfully requested t0 deny Plaintiff‘s motion in its entirety. DATED: June 11, 2021 CHOLAKIAN & ASSOCIATES A Professional Corporation WMWM K/evin K. CKolakian, Esq. Melvin F. Marcia, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant Louis Bonino _ 10 _ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF LOUIS BONINO’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS \OOONONUI-PUJNH NNNNNNNNNt-tt-th-th-tt-tt-tt-th-th-tp-t OONONUI-PUJNHOKOOONONUI-PWNHO Palomera-Bravo v. Bonino, et al. Santa Clara County Superior Court Case. N0:17CV315032 PROOF OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, hereby declare that I am a resident 0f the United States, over the age 0f eighteen years and not a party t0 the Within action. My business address is 400 Oyster Point B1Vd., Suite 415, South San Francisco, California 94080. I am employed in the County 0f San Mateo Where this service occurs. I am readily familiar With my employer's normal business practice for collection and processing 0f correspondence for mailing with the U.S. Postal Service, and that practice is that correspondence is deposited With the U. S. Postal Service the same day as the day 0f collection in the ordinary course 0f business. On the date set forth below, following ordinary business practice, I served 0r caused t0 be served the within: DEFENDANT LOUIS BONINO’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO TAX COSTS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF LOUIS BONINO OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS DECLARATION OF MELVIN F. MARCIA IN SUPPORT OF LOUIS BONINO’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS 0n the interested parties t0 this action by placing a true and correct copy thereof as follows: Bita Azimi, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff, Jose Angel Palomera- BANAFSHEH, DANESH & JA VID, PC 9701 Bravo Wilshire B1Vd., 12th Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (3 1 0) 887-1 8 1 8 Facsimile: (3 1 0) 887-1 880 Email: mem@bhattornevs.com; bp@bhatt0mevs.com bma@bhatt0rnevs.com rnl@bhatt0rnevs.com Peter Polos, Esq. Co-counsel for Plaintiff Panish Shea & Boyle LLP 1111 Santa Monica Blvd. Ste 700 Los Angeles, CA 900025 Tel: (3 1 0) 447-1 700 Fax: (3 10) 447-1699 Email: polos@psblaw.com g ONLY BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION. Only by e-mailing the document(s) t0 the persons at the e-mail address(es) listed based on notice provided 0n (date letter sent), that during the Coronavirus (C0Vid-19) pandemic, this office will be working remotely, not able t0 send physical mail as usual, and is therefore using only electronic mail. N0 - 1 - PROOF OF SERVICE S \DOOflQUl-PUJNH NNNNNNNNNt-tt-th-tt-tt-tt-tt-th-tt-tt-t OONONUl-PUJNHOKDOONONUl-PUJNHO electronic message 0r other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the transmission. (STATE) I declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws 0f the State 0f California that the above is true and correct. Executed 0n June 11, 2021 in South San Francisco, California. Rosemary AUéomisky Culiver - 2 - PROOF OF SERVICE